Straight Talk Advice

May 23, 2012

Young people share views on proposed cigarette tax

Dear Straight Talk: I'm following the ballot proposition to add $1 tax to a pack of cigarettes purchased in California. The tax will be used for researching tobacco-related cancers and illnesses. There are claims that the tax increase will reduce the number of young people who light up. If it helps curb new smokers I'm all for it, but a friend thinks it's just another tax on the mostly poor and uneducated. Does your panel think this extra cost will be a deterrent for new smokers? — Curious about the youth perspective in Irvine, Calif.

Elise 20, Rexburg, Idaho Ask me a question

I support the tax for cancer research. However, if kids want to smoke, I doubt it will affect their decision.

Gregg 21, Los Angeles Ask me a question

Wrong. I used to smoke, and the biggest reason for stopping was the price. First I cut back as a way to continue, but the cost was still too much and I eventually quit completely.

Catherine 25, Hudson, N.Y. Ask me a question

I don't know anyone who has avoided cigarettes completely (they are everywhere at parties), but I know many who have quit because they couldn't afford the habit. Anything to discourage young smokers!

Justin 25, Redding, Calif. Ask me a question

I work at a gas station where hefty profits come from tobacco. Every time the price goes up, people groan and say they should quit, but never do. We are near the high school and young people are always starting up. I support the tax. Let smokers pay ALL the costs of smoking. But don't start taxing Girl Scout cookies!

Taylor 15, Santa Rosa, Calif. Ask me a question

Anything to lower the smoking rate is a good thing! I wish smoking was banned like other drugs.

Omari 18, Wellington, Florida Ask me a question

I've never smoked and don't understand the mentality. With the prices, it's like financially sponsoring your own death. I support the tax increase and think cigarettes should be as illegal as marijuana.

Colin 18, Sacramento Ask me a question

The California legislature can't get traction balancing the budget when so much of its revenues (this measure's included) are mandated as to how they can be spent. Smoking stinks, but Prop 29 is no help to our budget and should be defeated.

Peter 25, Monterey, Calif. Ask me a question

Taxing an addictive substance with lots of users will definitely increase revenues. But a dollar-a-pack increase isn't high enough to significantly deter users. So, yes, it ends up being a tax that mostly targets the poor.

Brandon 20, Mapleton, Maine Ask me a question

Some young smokers will just switch to pot. Pot-smoking friends say an ounce of pot gives them more “puffs” per dollar than a pack of cigarettes. The cigarette tax is a “stupid” tax. It pays for the stupidity of smoking.

Molly 20, Berkeley, Calif. Ask me a question

Cigarettes are already ridiculously expensive. But people don't start smoking by going out and buying themselves a pack. They start with friends. By the time they start buying, they're hooked, and their addiction doesn't disappear because the price is higher. I think the tax will just penalize those who already struggle. How about taxing the tobacco companies instead?

Katelyn 17, Huntington Beach, Calif. Ask me a question

Long-term smokers will still buy their tobacco, but the government isn't the only one who thinks with its wallet — many teens do, too.

Dear Curious: Well, there you have it. A good range of controversy with over 70 percent of responding panelists supporting the tax. Right now, 1 in 12 teens smoke, and 1 in 3 young adults smoke. Gauging from other states who raised their cigarette tax, the higher price should prevent 220,000 kids from getting addicted and motivate 100,000 adults to quit. That right there gets my vote. The tax will also support tobacco-cessation programs and efforts to stop underage tobacco sales. 

Editor's Note: Tobacco companies have coughed up a $47-million hairball to defeat this measure. That's compared to only $4.7 million of hard-won cash from non-profit supporters such as the American Cancer Society, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, and others. If the tobacco industry spending doesn't testify to the fact that this measure will reduce smoking, I don't know what will.

Most of the negative sentiments toward the measure are a result of Big Tobacco's propaganda. In 2006, when a similar increase was on the California ballot, I was influenced by opinion that cigarettes would become part of the black market drug trade on campus, thus exposing kids to harder drugs. I fell for this false (or, at best, inconsequential) claim, just like others fell for other inconsequential claims, and the bill failed. No more nonsense for me. Right here, several panelists speak to how the cost stimulates quitting or never starting.

Smoking is the number one most preventable cause of disease, disability and death in the U.S. — and almost every single smoker starts under age 25 — while still in official adolescence! California is lagging behind on smoking prevention with its current cigarette tax lower than 32 other states. This increase would bring us to number 16 in the nation. We're becoming a healthier society and I'll take a breath of fresh air to that. —Lauren

Straight Talk TNT is a non-profit organization. Your $5-10 per month donation will help sustain us. Please donate today!

Comment Form

Straight Talk Advice readers are known for their frank and constructive posts that lead to insightful conversations that help many people! Please keep these guidelines in mind when posting:

  • Be constructive: Needlessly cruel or obscene comments will probably be removed. Be conscious of this so your point can be heard.
  • Be relevant: Spam or senseless character attacks irrelevant to the discussion will also probably be removed.

Happy posting!

Straight Talk Advice Recommends